HC Deb 12 November 1956 vol 560 cc699-720

10.12 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill (Warrington)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Welfare Foods (Great Britain) Amendment Order, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No. 1130), dated 23rd July, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled. It is appropriate that this Prayer should be taken following the debate on the economic situation of the country. We have just listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a pompous and boastful speech, which obviously hid a discomforture which he displayed at the end of his speech. The Chancellor—this is relevant to the Order—has just said: In the short period in which I have held this office, I have made very considerable progress. At the end of the debate on the economic situation, I am able to bring before the House the details of an Order which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to make to effect some savings. We have already heard—I have no intention of repeating it all—that these savings will go towards the £30 to £50 million which is the amount incurred in the senseless, fruitless and immoral aggression of the last two weeks.

I am surprised to see no member of the Treasury present, because this Order must represent a Treasury decision. It cannot possibly concern the Minister of Health, because I cannot believe that the Minister of Health and his medical advisers would sanction the Order. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will try for one moment to contain himself, I may be able to make even him blush.

I should like the House, particularly hon. Members opposite, to listen to the provisions of this Order. In my experience of the House—and it extends over eighteen years—I have never known a meaner or more callous Order than this. The Order reduces the amount of milk for which the Minister of Health or Secretary of State for Scotland will make payment in respect of children under five attending day nurseries from one-third of a pint each morning and afternoon to one-third of a pint a day. This is one of the savings which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to effect in order to pay for this immoral war.

I watched on the television last week the Prime Minister at a lavish dinner at the Mansion House and boasting to the City magnates of Great Britain's might in the air, on land and at sea, and I knew of the miserable price which had to be paid—as I am going to prove—by the very poorest in the community, a price which is going to be paid by the most necessitous children of Britain. The world will learn that the Government have stooped to economising in this miserable way in order that they should display Britain's might.

Let me give hon. Members opposite the details. There is a tendency, I know, among them to believe that the children who attend day nurseries are put there by mothers earning high wages who are prepared to shelve their domestic responsibilities. That is a completely wrong picture. These are the facts. In 1952 the National Health Service Act permitted once free council nurseries to charge payments up to the full cost, which meant up to 6s. a day. Consequently children were withdrawn, with the result that whereas in 1952 there were 785 nurseries, today there are only 500. In view of the limited accommodation it was necessary for local authorities to establish certain priorities. I will tell the House who qualify for entrance to these nurseries and thus just who will be suffering because of this economy.

These are the priorities in our day schools today: children of mothers who are widows, separated or divorced wives, or wives whose husbands are totally disabled or in prison, or unmarried mothers; children of parents where the mother is in ill health and cannot care adequately for the children, or during the mother's confinement; children of parents who are living in housing conditions detrimental to health; children of widowers or where the mother has left the home; children of parents where, because the father is unemployed or his earnings so low, the mother is compelled to go to work as an economic necessity, providing that in all cases the mother is employed at least 35 hours a week; children admitted at the discretion of the divisional medical officer.

Even for these priority admissions, there is a waiting list in the London County Council area of 916. So nobody can possibly allege that the children in these day nurseries have come from even near-comfortable homes. These, I say again, are the most necessitous children of the country.

Two Ministers and a Secretary of State have signed this Order, and I am sorry that they have thought fit to leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to defend this callous Order, but I hope that even the Parliamentary Secretary will not come forward with the excuse that these women, perhaps, can buy welfare milk.

These are the facts. These nurseries in London are open from 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. They are opened early in the morning because the mother has to get to work after leaving her child at the nursery. I am told that in some cases these nurseries are one hour's travelling distance away for the mother, and that at least half an hour is not unusual.

Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham) indicated assent.

Dr. Summerskill

I am glad to see my hon. Friend, who is a member of London County Council, agreeing.

This means that the mother has to take the child out at 7 a.m. at least. It has to be dressed and fed before it leaves home at 6.30 and is then brought to the nursery by 7.30. The mother collects the child from the nursery at 5.30 p.m. or 6.0 p.m. In other words, the child, a baby under 5 years of age, is away from home for nearly 12 hours every day. And the Government have thought fit, in the name of economy, to cut the milk supply of these children from two-thirds of a pint a day—and I say that nutritionally that is the very minimum—to one-third of a pint a day.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Norwich, South)

This is a rather worrying point. Is the right hon. Lady, in saying that nutritionally it is bad for these children to have one-third of a pint instead of two-thirds, suggesting that that is all they have?

Dr. Summerskill

Does the hon. Member know anything at all about babies? I have tried to emphasise that this baby is taken out of its bed at 6.30 a.m. and gets back to its home about 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. This baby does not have late dinner. It does not sit up until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. The hours that I have mentioned are its living and playing day. The child is either in transit with its mother or in the nursery during the whole of its waking day. That is the point which I had hoped I had impressed upon hon. Members.

I see the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) leaving the Chamber. It is remarkable that hon. Members opposite have to go and ask civil servants what a baby needs during the day. This child is given one-third of a pint a day. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kidderminster appears to be taking a humane interest in this matter, and when I say that this is the harshest, meanest and cruellest Order that I have seen in my Parliamentary life, I think that the hon. Member will agree.

We also heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that astonishing speech today which ended in an emotional exhibition, rather boasting of the high pay which the workers were getting. No doubt hon. Members opposite will think that these women are very well paid, and therefore are able to make up for all this, perhaps on Sundays. Let us be realistic. What are women getting in these days of high pay? I think that hon. Members would say it was fair of me to estimate that these women, widows, wives of men in prison, and unmarried mothers, are for the most part unskilled workers. It would be fair to quote what they are getting in the distributive trades.

Women in the drapery trade in the provinces earn £4 12s. per week; in restaurants they are getting £4 2s. a week; in dressmaking £3 18s. a week. In one job which women like, the fur trade, they are getting £3 11s. 6d. I hope that those who have cut down this supply of milk will realise that many of these women are living alone and are therefore responsible for the rent and all the outgoings of the home. These women are the very Cinderellas of the industrial world. I remind the House that these children who are affected are denied a normal home life and should, therefore, receive our special care and attention.

It is against these necessitous children and their mothers that this miserable Order has been made. I hope that I may have been able to convince some hon. Members opposite, who have listened sincerely and honestly to what I have said. I believe the Order to be completely indefensible, and I ask the House to support the Prayer, because in supporting the Order hon. Members will inevitably ensure that these children will not develop to their maximum capacity. The Order represents a deliberate denial of a full life to necessitous children, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a sympathetic response so that there may be a chance that the Order will be withdrawn.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

The Explanatory Note to the Order refers to "young children attending day nurseries". There is nothing in the Order which says that all the young children are necessitous. While there may be some necessitous children, is it not a fact that there are tens of thousands of these children whose parents—and in many cases both parents—are gainfully employed in factories and earning good wages?

Dr. Summerskill

As usual, the hon. Member was so concerned with discussing some matter with one of his hon. Friends that he failed to listen. That was the most important part of my case.

The children in the day nurseries are the children of mothers who are widows—no two wages there. They are the children of separated or divorced wives—no two wages there; wives whose husbands are totally disabled or in prison. Would the hon. Member say that those men are earning such high sums that I am being unreasonable? They are the children of unmarried mothers-no two wages there; the children of parents where the mother is in ill health and cannot care adequately for the children, or during the mother's confinement, and children of parents living in housing conditions detrimental to health; children of widowers or where the mother has left home. Surely, in view of that, the hon. Member cannot support the contention that these children are so well off that they cannot be regarded as necessitous.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking)

I am very glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), because I agree that this is the meanest cut which the Government have imposed. It is an attack upon a class of people unable to defend themselves. Since 1950, 300 day nurseries in Britain have been closed, almost one-third of the total. As the right hon. Lady clearly pointed out, that means that there has been a tightening of admissions, and, therefore, only the priority classes, children from the very poorest homes, have been admitted.

I suggest that there is another reason for this being a particularly mean Order. Because the Government are prepared to pay for only one-third of a pint of milk, and because competent medical authorities think that two-thirds of a pint is desirable, the decent-minded local authorities will themselves pay for the extra one-third of a pint. That is happening in at least one local authority, which I know very well. It is true that the authority will get a 50 per cent. grant on this from the Government, but it means that while three-quarters of the milk for young children in day nurseries is paid for out of taxes, one-quarter of the cost will be transferred from the taxes to the rates. Unfortunately, not all local authorities will pay for this milk; one local authority I know is doing so and I hope that others are acting in the same way.

Perhaps I ought to declare my interest in milk, because, frankly, I owe my life to the domestic cow. Like many other sufferers from a duodenal ulcer, I was ordered a quart of milk a day for two months, and for that reason I am in good general health today. This occurred a good many years ago. As far as I know, as a doctor, nothing could have taken the place of that milk.

The cow is a marvellous creature. It can produce valuable food, which we can assimilate readily, from meadow grass and it can go on doing this year after year. It can produce good milk, filled with butter fat, even when the food which it is given contains no fats whatever. Milk is an extraordinarily valuable food which contains no fewer than 20 different food substances—vitamin A in quantities, vitamin D in less quantity and other valuable substances. It has been described as a protective food which prevents diseases. It prevents rickets, certain forms of anaemia and other diseases in children.

May I read from "The Health of the School Child", the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1929, to show what he said about milk? In page 114 hon. Members will read: Evidence accumulates of the value of the addition of a supplementary ration of milk to the normal diet, both of normal and malnourished children. This means in addition to normal diet. The children we are concerned with may have been receiving a reasonable diet in their homes, but they receive this addition to the diet in the nursery when they attend.

I read "evidence accumulates". I wonder whether it would be out of place if I shortly gave a little of this evidence of the value of milk for normal children having normal diets. I find many examples of such evidence. Dr. Corry Mann, a report of whose researches is given in a Medical Research Council document, took some hundreds of boys, aged six to eleven, and divided them into seven groups.

To some he gave just an ordinary diet and to others an ordinary diet to which had been added various other substances. There were sugar, butter, margarine, casein, watercress and an extra pint of fresh pasteurised milk every day. He found that children on the extra milk did much better than any of the others. They put on weight, they grew in height more rapidly and they became more lively and better in appearance and in general health.

Similar observations were made in 1930 by Dr. Leighton and Dr. McKinlay. They tested 20,000 children in Lanarkshire who were living at home on the ordinary diet of working-class homes. These two doctors found exactly the same thing. The children improved in every way on extra milk.

I suggest that the supplying of milk in schools and in day nurseries is valuable in many ways. It is valuable psychologically. We know that a certain number of children are said to be pernickety over their food. They do not like milk and refuse to drink it.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I was one of them.

Mr. Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

The hon. Gentleman still is.

Mr. Hastings

My hon. Friend says that he was one of such children. It is good to see him today in such good health. When such children see other children drinking milk in the day nurseries they will surely be much more inclined to take this most valuable food at home when they can get it.

Then there are the parents who may not realise the value of milk. They may think it a rather expensive beverage. But when they find that their children are given milk under the authority of those who ought to know and are doing well on it they will probably be impressed. As I say, I look upon this as a most mean action and I hope that if the Government cannot defend it—and I know they cannot—they will withdraw the Order.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Norwich, South)

I have listened to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) with great interest, and, of course, I do not dispute anything he has to say about the nutritional value of milk. I am concerned, as I am sure are hon. Members on both sides of the House, to ensure that every child has enough milk.

I put a question to the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), which, if I may say so, she answered in a rather typical fashion, to elucidate what her real complaint was and how far she was suggesting that these children were not in a position to get enough milk. As I understand the position, it is that these children are entitled to their pint at l½d. and that, in addition, the necessitous cases, such as the ones mentioned by the right hon. Lady, can get it free.

In addition, all school children get one-third of a pint a day and only children at the day nurseries are getting two-thirds of a pint. [HON. MEMBERS: "Were getting."] Were getting two-thirds of a pint. That means, in fact, that they will be in the position of getting a pint at l½d. and one-third of a pint for nothing while the children at home, who are the great majority, are just getting the pint for 1½d.

I was concerned about the point made by the right hon. Lady regarding the time the children spend in school. That, obviously, is a different matter from being deprived of a sufficient and proper supply of milk. It is a question of whether they can drink it at the day nursery or when they are at home. As I understand, they could take it with them. In any event, I think that the right hon. Lady rather exaggerated the position when she spoke about the length of time which the children spend in day nurseries. They are not there, I believe, for all that length of time. If they are, I would suggest that they ought to be allowed by the local authority to take their pint of milk with them and drink it there.

The right hon. Lady also said that the people who use the nurseries are the very poorest of the community. That may well be true of some of the priority cases, and I should have thought that they might qualify for the free pint in any case, but I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that many of the rest are in the second or third priority sections. Quite a number are in the third priority where the mother and father are earning jointly £10 a week or more.

It is wrong to exaggerate the effect of this Order. It would be much more helpful if we could debate a matter of this kind without the obvious distortions which the right hon. Lady has put upon the position.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, All Saints)

Can the hon. Gentleman give one example of any conceivable circumstances where a child can get into a day nursery when both the parents are earning £10 a week? It is absolutely impossible.

Mr. Rippon

I can quote the example of the local authority of which the hon. Member for Barking and myself are members, because the second priority applies where the parents' joint income does not exceed £10 a week, and the third priorty applies where both parents are working and where their income exceeds £10 a week. The hon. Member for Barking will confirm that there are large numbers of children in that third priority where the joint income of the parents exceeds £10 a week, perhaps by a considerable amount. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.

I noted, also, that the right hon. Lady suggested that the charge of the day nurseries in 1952 was up to 6s. a day. I am sure that she, with her great knowledge, will be aware that the London County Council cost is 16s. 10d. a day. If a mother leaves two children there the cost is over £8 a week. It would pay the country to give her £7 a week tax-free and free one and a half other people to do the work which she does at the moment. It may well be that, from many other points of view, these day nurseries are not economic. That, perhaps, is another issue, but we ought not to let go by the right hon. Lady's figure of 6s. a day.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

Can the hon. Gentleman substantiate what he is saying about there being a large number of children in the London day nurseries in the second and third categories? He said that very many were not in the first priority category. Can he support his statement with figures, instead of asking the House to rely on his generalisations?

Mr. Rippon

I did not expect the question of the London County Council's position to be raised, but I have the percentage figures. I am speaking from memory, but I think that about 50 per cent. are in the first priority category, about 30 per cent. in the second and 20 per cent. in the third. I say that subject to correction. I will give the hon. Lady the figures afterwards, if she would like to have them.

10.44 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

This debate serves to show how completely out of touch with the whole position hon. Members opposite are, first, as to the reason for day nurseries, and, secondly, the difficult circumstances of many of mothers who have to send their children to them.

I do not like to see the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) almost laughing and sneering at us when we advance arguments in favour of annulling this Order.

Mr. Percy Wells (Faversham)

Almost?

Mrs. Slater

There are two reasons for our case against the Order. As to the first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has pointed out that many of the women who have to take their children to day nurseries do so because of sheer economic circumstances in their homes. When hon. Members opposite, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster did in an undertone, suggest that a woman who is separated from her husband or an unmarried mother may have another income—it was even said in an undertone that the person whose husband was ill might have something—it just shows how completely out of touch they are with the circumstances of working-class people.

Does not the hon. Member know that when a man, whose wife has to go out to work, is ill, it often costs more for him to be looked after at home? That man needs more, but is getting less. Does the hon. Member not know that many women go out to work because the high cost of food and living makes it impossible for them to keep their home going on their husband's income?

The second reason for our case against the Order—and we ought not to forget it—is that many day nurseries were opened because we asked women to go out to work. We needed them to produce goods for our export trade. Stoke-on-Trent, for instance, at a time when the number of day nurseries was being cut, was allowed to open 12 special day nurseries because we needed women to work in the potteries as a result of our economic circumstances. Day nurseries, therefore, enable women to help to increase production in many of our important industries.

Hon. Members have talked about the one-third of a pint of milk. It may not sound much when one says it, but we have to measure the reduction in the amount of milk to children over the whole period when they are in the day nurseries. It may be for six months, or it may be for two years. I have known children suffer because they were not given adequate supplies of milk in their early years. It is of great importance that children of the age in question should have an adequate supply of milk.

There is a further point which we ought not to forget, either. Because of the Government's action, the cost of milk to the housewife has risen. It is now more difficult for the mother to buy milk at home to make good the reduction in the amount given to the child in the day nursery.

Mr. Rippon

Is that so? Surely the price of l½d. per pint for children up to the age of five and for expectant mothers is not affected by this Order or any other Order?

Mrs. Slater

That may be so, but the hon. Member was saying that the mother could supplement the reduction in the amount supplied at the day nursery.

Mr. Hastings

The mother drinks milk, too.

Mrs. Slater

Yes, the mother needs some of the milk, too.

Another thing, which is not, however, in relation to the Order, but it provides further evidence of the Government's attitude to such matters as this, is that children in mental deficiency schools get milk up to the age of 16, but can no longer get it if they remain there after that age. That is merely another indication of the course of action which the Government persist in following.

Mr. Rippon

Might I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I think that the hon. Lady knew she was out of order, and has now left the point.

Mrs. Slater

I was merely using it as an instance of the sort of action which the Government are pursuing.

Mr. Rippon rose—

Mrs. Slater

No, I will not give way.

If the Government are sincere—and after the events of the last week or two we have very grave doubts about that—in trying to tell the people that they really have some concern for them, why do they have to sink to such miserable and low methods as these, saying to mothers who are in difficult economic circumstances, to the very women whom they have asked to go out to work, "We will punish you a little further by ordering that your children shall have less milk than previously we were prepared to give them"?

The amount of milk originally prescribed was determined by what medical opinion held was the minimum that the children should have. Now the Government deny that medical opinion. I hope that even at this late stage they will have second thoughts as to how far they are prepared to go on with this Order.

10.52 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

Are we really to believe that the Government intend to implement this awful Order? Is it really the case that Her Majesty's Government, composed of some of the wealthiest elements in our country, with their hands full of foreign affairs and complications, with their hands full of economic problems, intend to get down to discussing the question of depriving children under five years of age of one-third of a pint of milk per day? I should have thought that such a thing was beneath their notice.

I know of no sight so miserable as that which I sometimes bump into on a winter morning, around 7 o'clock, when I see a young mother struggle up a drive near my home with her young children on her way to put them into the nursery—at that time of morning. I have felt glad that I have not got to go out at that time every morning. I have not to do it every morning, but on a particular occasion I may be going for a train. I then ask myself whether I would like to have to do that every day.

I know, also, that those people would not do so were it not for some very hard pressure which makes them do so. I do not know why the hon. Member below the Gangway thinks this so funny. I cannot see anything at all to smile and grin about when an Order like this is being discussed. Irrespective of the parents, irrespective of the grant, does anybody who knows the habits of young children not recognize that in the morning, at present, they are getting their one-third of a pint of milk, and then getting another one-third of a pint in the afternoon? Like grown-ups, they look forward to their "elevenses". Children get that "peckish" feeling when the time approaches for them to get their one-third of a pint of milk. The same routine occurs in the afternoon, when the children usually have a rest. Some go to bed, and when they get up they have a second one-third of a pint.

Do hon. Members opposite think it is worth while adopting a paltry measure like this? What great glory will it bring to Britain that hon. Members opposite should stoop so low as to introduce an Order like this? Is there not a rebel on the benches opposite? Are we to understand that at no time, in no circumstances, will hon. Members opposite ever become rebels? The sort of unanimity that they display can be found in a graveyard. Are we to understand that there are over 330 minds with but a single thought, whether it concerns robbing youngsters under five of a third of a pint of milk, or whether it comes to declaring an ultimatum on Suez?

I cannot understand it. I know a great many hon. Members opposite personally. Individually, they would not stoop to this. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is the last who would do a thing like this. I appeal to some of the hon. Members opposite to rebel tonight. I appeal to the Minister and to other hon. Members to rebel for once in their lives. It does one good occasionally to be a rebel, and this is a good issue on which to rebel. I hope that at least hon. Members opposite will stay out of the Lobby when the vote is taken tonight.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye (Norfolk, South-West)

If there was a reason for reducing the consumption of milk in this country, and the Government could produce it, they might say that there was not enough for the children. But what are the facts? At present, our production of milk is 66f per cent. above that of 1939. This year we are producing 20 million gallons a month more than we were last year, and the problem is what to do with it.

In circumstances like that, the hon. and laughing Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) thinks that this is a time to reduce the milk for children, to reduce the price to the producer and to inflict a hardship on the poorest children in the land. I am amazed at the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) speaking as he did on such a matter, coming from a county that is producing more milk than ever. I am amazed at hon. Members from agricultural constituencies betraying the interests of those whom they represent and making more difficult the problems of the farmers.

The Government and hon. Members from agricultural constituencies ought to be ashamed to support this wretched Order.

10.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)

I am sorry that so notable a feminist as the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) should feel affronted that we should follow normal procedure in that I should be replying to this debate. I must say that I think her speech was remarkable for its deliberate omissions, because the right hon. Lady knows the background of this subject only too well. She has deliberately divorced this small group of children, less than 1 per cent. of the child population, from the general pattern of welfare foods and services which they, along with all other children under five in this country, obtain.

The real issue is not whether the 20,000 children in the day nurseries get less than they did before. Surely, the vital issue is whether the provision of milk for all children is an adequate one. If, on nutritional grounds, the right hon. Lady considers that the provision of welfare milk generally is insufficient—and she did not seek to say so—then she might have a case. But the fact is that every child under five in this country—and there are over 3 million of them, including those in these day nurseries—is entitled to a pint of milk a day at the price of l½d.

This is proof that we agree with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) on the great value of milk for children. For that reason, despite the reduction of the subsidy on the ordinary purchase of milk, the supply of the daily pint of welfare milk for children has been retained at the level of l½d. per pint, which means that the parent gets a 3s. 6d. subsidy on the milk supply in the week.

Children in the day nurseries have that pint of milk at home, at a cost of 10½d. per week. As I said in a recent Adjournment debate on this subject, that daily pint of milk should be a prior claim on family allowances, and, for those with only one child, a very obvious investment. In necessitous cases, such as those mentioned by the right hon. Lady, in the most difficult cases where people have a very modest income, that milk at home is provided free. In addition to the pint at home, the child in the day nursery will now get one-third of a pint of milk free on the same basis as school children.

Let us not forget that at the same time the children obtain orange juice every two weeks at 5d. a bottle, or free if necessary; and they obtain a bottle of cod liver oil every six weeks free of charge. This basis of welfare foods, let us remember, was worked out during the war, when we had strict rationing, when there was very little butter, very little fresh fruit, and very limited supplies of meat. When the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) asks Whether we are concerned for the welfare of the people, I can only reply that people are today eating a much better quality and quantity of food than they ever did under the Government she supported.

There is no basis for suggesting, and hon. Members opposite know it, that the discontinuance of this duplicate allocation will cause hardship, or that it will result in the children being deprived of necessary nourishment. These children will obtain their one and one-third pints a day, at a total cost of l½d. That is neither mean nor inadequate, to use the hon. Lady's words.

Mrs. Jeger

Is there any evidence to suggest that when children get two-thirds of a pint in addition to the pint at home, that is excessive? Are these children milk-sodden and over-fed, so that some reduction should be imposed?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

With the other foods available, their diet is much wider than it was when the two-thirds of a pint was initiated.

Mr. Hastings

What are the diets to which the hon. Lady is referring? Many of the children at day nurseries are very young children, plenty of them being under two years of age.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

They are of various ages under five; and the mid-day meal, which can be provided from a wider diet now than it could be when this scheme was first started, is included within the cost of the day nursery, or free if the children are taken in free.

In present conditions, there is no reason to believe that the duplicate provision of this milk above that for the other 3 million children in the country is necessary. The majority of children attending local authority day nurseries are, it is true—and here I go some way to agree with the right hon. Lady—children whose mothers may be widows, who may be unmarried, and who, for various reasons, cannot manage to look after them at home because they have to earn their living. But this does not really affect the position, because these mothers only pay such charges as they can reasonably afford for their children at the nursery, and in cases of need the child's milk at home is also provided free.

In view of the increased variety of food now available, a pint and a third of milk a day for a child under five is considered to be adequate as part of its proper diet. If it is not adequate, the other 3 million children would be in the same category. The local authorities who are already providing meals, the cost of which is included in the charge made to the mother, will, of course, also be able to provide, as they do provide, milk in the milk puddings and the various parts of the diet which go to make up the mid-day meal.

This is not a case of the Government depriving children of a necessary amount of milk to effect an economy. It is a reasonable measure which takes into account the changed circumstances and the much wider and more nutritional diet now available.

Mr. Nabarro

A very satisfactory answer.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I would remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that he is not addressing a police officer.

I was going to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that she will not be surprised if I say that her reply is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and much meaner than the reply she gave me on 1st August, which shows the deterioration of this Government.

I will not say anything about the nutritional aspect of this matter, except that the hon. Lady has utterly failed adequately to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). This is government by bureaucrats. The Chancellor asked for Departments to make suggestions about economy. A diligent, minor civil servant noticed what he thought to be an anomaly. The remarkable thing is that it should reach the Floor of the House and should be implemented. It is being implemented only because no one exercised any political judgment about that minor civil servant's advice. That is a disturbing thing.

In August, we were disturbed because the Lord Privy Seal revealed that he knew nothing about this Order. If he had been given an opportunity to exercise his political judgment, I doubt whether we would have been troubled by it. But the disturbing thing is that we get this Order, signed by three Ministers, one of whom, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food realises, is, at the same time, very embarrassed by what he calls "the milk surplus".

Mr. David Llewellyn (Cardiff, North)

Before the hon. Gentleman continues, can he say what evidence has he about his allegation concerning the minor civil servant?

Mr. Willey

That is what I have called an essentially commonsense assumption.

It is disturbing when we get such action as this being taken without any political judgment. We suspect that too many political decisions have been taken without bothering to exercise political judgment.

We are not concerned here with removing an anomaly. We are concerned with what I would call, broadly, Christian charity. It is conceded by everyone in the House that the children who come under this Order are unfortunate children. By circumstance their childhood is unfortunate, and one of their misfortunes is to have to attend a nursery school. They are deprived of the ordinary home environment. The Parliamentary Secretary comes here and says, "We really must stop these children getting a third of a pint of milk more than other children".

I do not think that that is the right way to look at this matter. We should be broad and generous and say that we are proud that these little children, who are handicapped in so many ways, are,

at any rate, getting this concession. Fancy a Minister like the hon. Lady saying, "I am going to stop these children having this small concession." For that meanness we intend to embarrass the hon. Lady and divide the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 229.

Division No. 3.] AYES [11.11 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Hayman, F. H. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Healey, Denis Pargiter, G. A.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Herbison, Miss M. Parker, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hobson, C. R. Parkin, B. T.
Awbery, S. S. Holman, P. Pearson, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Holmes, Horace Peart, T. F.
Balfour, A. Houghton, Douglas Pentland, N.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Howell, Denis (All Saints) Popplewell, E.
Benson, G. Hubbard, T. F. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Beswick, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Blackburn, F. Hunter, A. E. Probert, A. R.
Boardman, H. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Proctor, W. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Pryde, D. J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Irving, S. (Dartford) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bowles, F. G. Janner, B. Randall, H. E.
Boyd, T. C. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Redhead, E. C.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Reeves, J.
Brockway, A. F. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Broughton, Or. A. D. D. Johnson, James (Rugby) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Ross, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Royle, C.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Short, E. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Carmichael, J. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Champion, A. J. Kenyon, C. Skeffington, A. M.
Chetwynd, G. R. King, Dr. H. M. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Clunie, J. Lawson, G. M. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Coldrick, W. Ledger, R. J. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sorensen, R. W.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Steele, T.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda MacColl, J. E. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McGhee, H. G. Stones, W. (Consett)
Cullen, Mrs. A. Mcinnes, J. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) McLeavey, Frank Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Deer, G. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Sylvester, G. O.
de Freitas, Geoffrey MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Delargy, H. J. Mahon, Simon Thornton, E.
Dodds, N. N. Mainwaring, W. H. Timmons, J.
Donnelly, D. L. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mann, Mrs. Jean Warbey W. N.
Dye, S. Mason, Roy Watkins, T. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Mellish, R. J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mikardo, Ian West, D. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mitchison, G. R. Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Moody, A. S. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Fernyhough, E. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Willey, Frederick
Finch, H. J. Mort, D. L. Williams, David (Neath)
Forman, J. C. Moss, R. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mulley, F. W. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gibson, C. W. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Gooch, E. G. Oram, A. E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Greenwood, Anthony Orbach, M. Winterbottom, Richard
Grey, C. F. Oswald, T. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Owen, W. J. Woof, R. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Padley, W. E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hamilton, W. W. Paget, R. T. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hannan, W. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hastings, S. Palmer, A. M. F. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.
NOES
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Gresham Cooke, R. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Aitken, W. T. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Walter
Alport, C. J. M. Gurden, Harold Moore, Sir Thomas
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Hall, John (Wycombe) Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Harris, Reader (Heston) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Arbuthnot, John Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Nairn, D. L. S.
Armstrong, C. W. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Neave, Airey
Ashton, H. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd) Nicholls, Harmar
Astor, Hon. J. J. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Oakshott, H. D.
Baldwin, A. E. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. O' Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Balniel, Lord Henderson, John (Cathcart) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Barber, Anthony Hesketh, R. F. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Barlow, Sir John Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Barter, John Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Osborne, C.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Page, R. G.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Hirst, Geoffrey Partridge, E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Holland-Martin, C. J. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bidgood, J. C. Hornby, R. P. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Pitman, I. J.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Horobin, Sir Ian Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bishop, F. P. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Pott, H. P.
Black, C. W. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Powell, J. Enoch
Body, R. F. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boothby, Sir Robert Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Ramsden, J. E.
Braine, B. R. Hurd, A. R. Rawlinson, Peter
Brooman-White, R. C. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Ridsdale, J. E.
Bryan, P. Iremonger, T. L. Rippon, A. G. F.
Burden, F. F. A. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Carr, Robert Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Channon, H. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Russell, R. S.
Chichester-Clark, R. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Sharples, R. G.
Cole, Norman Johnson, Erie (Blackley) Shepherd, William
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Joseph, Sir Keith Simon, J, E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Kaberry, D. Speir, R. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Keegan, D. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Kershaw, J. A. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crouch, R. F. Kimball, M. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cunningham, Knox Kirk, P. M. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Currie, G. B. H. Lagden, G. W. Studholme, Sir Henry
Dance, J. C. G. Lambert, Hon. G. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry Lambton, Viscount Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Deedes, W. F. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Teeling, W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Leaver, J. A. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Doughty, C. J. A. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Drayson, G. B. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
du Cann, E. D. L. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Linstead, Sir H. N. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Llewellyn, D. T. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Touche, Sir Gordon
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Longden, Gilbert Turner, H. F. L.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Errington, Sir Eric Macdonald, Sir Peter Vane, W. M. F.
Farey-Jones, F. W. McKibbin, A. J. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Fell, A. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Vickers, Miss J. H.
Finlay, Graeme Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Vosper, D. F.
Fisher, Nigel Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Freeth, D. K. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Wall, Major Patrick
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
George, J. C. (Pollok) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Gibson-Watt, D. Maddan, Martin Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Glover, D. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Gomme Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Marlowe, A. A. H. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gower, H. R. Marples, A. E. Wood, Hon. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus Marshall, Douglas Woollam, John Victor
Grant, W. (Woodside) Maude, Angus
Green, A. Medlicott, Sir Frank TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Godber.
ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.